Originally posted by diskamyl
...my point is: people didn't actually play and win-lose-or draw against a 800 level of play, they did all those against a much higher level, and the rating system didn't reflect that. I guess this argument should be reasonable.
Basically you think that the rating change from the result of a game should be based on your opponents rating right before the game starts and not when it ends, right?
Let's pretend that we change the rating system to work as described above. What happens when I start a game against a 1600 but when I win, he/she is a 1800? Is it fair now that I only get points based on 1600 and not 1800?
What if the endgame in question required me to play it like an 1800 to win the game?
Which rating is more accurate? The rating from when the game started (could be months, almost a year) or the rating when the game ended?
Again, the rating system is an ESTIMATE of a player's playing strength and it is not meant to dole out the exact number of rating points you truly deserve.
The way you complain I would think your opponent in question was doing this on purpose.
If I was losing a game against someone would I resign a bunch of games so that one person gets squat points? No, I think this an unreasonable theory.
Limiting games is not the answer. Who you play and what time controls you agree to is. You not like opponents using their time? Do 1 day time controls with no timebank.
Its your choice who you play or who you possibly play.